you seem to forget that when clinton attacked iraq in 1998 he said he did so with authority from EXISTING UN resolutions in his speech in the same year givin on national television. to quote:Originally posted by: BDawg
Number of wars started by President Bush - 1Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
...and all along I thought Bush had "misled" him, which is one reason he is running for President. Gee, Kerry misled me!
Number of wars started by President Clinton - 0
Number of wars started by President Kerry - 0
"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. "
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."
questions for dems:
if clinton and all the dems(also france and germany) who supported this act of war on iraq "based on existing un resolutions" why now are they saying we needed another resolution when bush basically finished what clinton started?
how would the "best way to end the threat for once and for all" be if not forcibly removing him for power? what other way would have accomplished this since 11 years of diplomacy failed?
who did economic sanctions hurt the most, the iraqi people or those in power in the government? did 11 years of economic sanctions work effectively?
why were most democrats and many in the UN) oppose invading iraq in 1991 after saddam was ousted from kuwait? why do those same democrats(and nations in the UN) today berate bush sr. for "not finishing the job" when they are the ones responsible for the job not being finished?